Kerry's call for "regime change" (4/5)

By Bryan Keefer

On Tuesday, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) made this inflammatory statement: "What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States." While Kerry went on to argue that "it will take a new president of the United States, declaring a new day for our relationship with the world, to clear the air and turn a new page on American history," his explicit rhetorical parallel between President Bush and Saddam Hussein is particularly nasty. The phrase "regime change" has been used almost exclusively in the public discourse to describe the U.S. effort to remove Saddam from power and thus carries a connotation that the regime is question is illegitimate and fundamentally evil. Leveraging these associations as an applause line is a cheap shot that undermines rational debate.

In response, however, the Republican National Committee has promulgated some spin of its own. An email [136K PDF] to supporters over the signature of Deputy Chairman Jack Oliver claimed that "These [Kerry's] comments are just the latest example of Democrat leaders blaming America first . . . Joe Lieberman called President Bush a 'greater threat to peace than Saddam Hussein.'"

Lieberman, however, said no such thing. On February 27, Lieberman stated at a campaign stop that "When more people around the world see the current American president as a greater threat to peace than Saddam Hussein, then you know something is really wrong with his foreign policy." Clearly, Lieberman was making reference to world opinion - not stating that Bush is such a threat. The RNC email strips Lieberman's quote of any context in an utterly dishonest attack. It remains to be seen if this misquotation becomes another media myth.

[Email this to a friend] [Subscribe to our email list]

Related links:
-Spinsanity on terrorist labels and Taliban comparisons
-Trashing Patrick Leahy (Brendan Nyhan, 4/19/02)

4/4/2003 10:59:37 PM EST |

Myths and misconceptions about the war in Iraq (4/4)

By Brendan Nyhan and Bryan Keefer

Accurate information is essential for an informed political debate over the war in Iraq here at home. Yet since hostilities were initiated, politicians and the American media have continued to circulate misinformation, much of which has gone largely unchecked. As with our first column on the debate leading up to the war, we can only deal with information that has been addressed conclusively or near-conclusively on the public record. We do not address most of the apparently mistaken reports that are at least understandable amidst the fog of war. We also do not address allegations from coalition forces that can't be independently verified at this time, nor do we look at the propaganda of the Iraqi regime, which is of course extraordinarily suspect. (Read the whole column.)

Related links:
-Myths and misconceptions about Iraq (Bryan Keefer, Ben Fritz and Brendan Nyhan, 3/20/03)

4/4/2003 02:55:04 PM EST |

Some war rhetoric turns against open debate (4/4)

By Ben Fritz

As the war against Iraq enters its third week and debates rage about tactics and policies, some politicians and pundits have been using extreme rhetoric that serves only to shut down open discussion, rather than encourage it. Strong terms like "aid and comfort" and "traitor" need to be saved for the most extreme circumstances, not simply used against those with whom people strongly disagree. While strong emotions are sure to rise at a time when Americans and Iraqis are dying and our national security may be at risk, these arguments serve to undermine one of the most fundamental values of American democracy: fair and open debate about national policy.

In some cases, these terms have been used simply as cheap labels to smear opponents as siding with the enemy. A piece for the New York Post by Ralph Peters, for instance, criticized an article by John Lee Anderson and referred to the publication that ran it, The New Yorker, as "a minor magazine loosely affiliated with the Baghdad regime." An editorial in the Manchester [New Hampshire] Union Leader suggested that Democrats who criticize the war in Iraq while it is happening, such as former Vermont governor and presidential candidate Howard Dean, are "giving aid and comfort and false encouragement to an enemy who is counting on just that sort of thing." And in his online column for The Nation, John Nichols compared the current media to that of the Soviet Union and labeled some right-wing pundits "neo-conservative commisars."

There have also been several comparisons of the Bush administration to one of the deadliest dictators the world has ever known. A column on the liberal website Common Dreams was dedicated solely to comparisons between President Bush and Adolf Hitler, likening the new homeland security department to the S.S. and the war against Iraq to the Nazi regime's oppression of Jews. According to the New York Post, in a recent interview with TV Guide, Ed Gernon, the executive producer of a CBS miniseries about the life of Hitler, said public support for Bush's policies is "'absolutely' similar to post-World War I Germany's acceptance of Hitler's extremism."

None of the arguments contained in these articles are necessarily inappropriate or unfair. But by seeking to affiliate their opponents with fascism, communism, or the Iraqi government or implying that they are aiding our enemy in a war, these columnists and editorialists are all avoiding the actual debate and slurring those with whom they disagree.

Even a U.S. general has made recent comments that serve to stifle dissent. In a press conference, General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in response to a question "about criticism from current and former officers" that such comments are "harmful to our troops that are out there fighting very bravely, very courageously." While Myers has every right to ask that current officers don't publicly criticize their superiors, questioning the right of former officers to criticize U.S. military policy is inappropriate. Indeed, our democracy clearly benefits from the viewpoints of former officers who are military experts, as they can make a valuable contribution to debates. Such comments could only be "harmful to our troops" if one assumes the tactics and policies adopted by the current administration are necessarily best for them. Even if criticism does lower some soldiers' morale, which is possible, that is clearly outweighed by the benefits of utilizing our military as effectively as possible, which happens in a democracy through vigorous debate and dissent.

Both supporters and opponents of the war in Iraq claim to cherish fundamental American values, including support for vigorous and open debate about government policy. We should hope that the pundits and leaders engaging in that debate at the highest levels will do a better job of encouraging that value, rather than trying to delegitimize their opponents.

[Email this to a friend] [Subscribe to our email list]

4/4/2003 01:14:48 PM EST |

This website is copyright (c) 2001-2005 by Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan. Please send letters to the editor for publication to letters@spinsanity.org and private questions or comments to feedback@spinsanity.org.

Comments by YACCS